31-12-2004 19:13									#121
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo This is actually quite false as it has been quite established that it was in fact part of the oil for food program. Nice twist on the facts though... doesn't quite work out when you present no evidence to counter me.

HA HAHA HA HA HAHA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

You are pathetic.

	31-12-2004 19:16									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

And I think some people need to get a little less personal.


And Giancarlo, you are the MAJOR offender here. One more insult from you, and you are toast, yet again!

	31-12-2004 19:20									#123
	Support Apolyton

" Iraq has enough men to start a conscription based army and enough of these men will be wanting to fight."

I feel this is false. Enough able men, young men who are trained properly. No not some 6 week crash course, but really soldier training. THAT might be however possible. But I don't think they have enough men who are WILLING to fight properly.

What we have to remember when it comes to certain counries, they talk a lot and do not walk the walk. Lot of shooting in the air and praise this and that, but when they are facing a real enemy, their minds change. This has been seen time and time and time and time and time again. But this time they don't even have a .. a backing of strong leaders they could be praising on or something so I see it going straight to crappers if in fact they are left alone too soon. Maybe in 10 years they will be ready, maybe. Not now, not in the near future though.

	31-12-2004 19:34									#124
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ming point out where I insulted any one person. I was insulting liberal leaders.. everybody does it all the time to Bush.

quote: Originally posted by Pekka I feel this is false. Enough able men, young men who are trained properly. No not some 6 week crash course, but really soldier training. THAT might be however possible. But I don't think they have enough men who are WILLING to fight properly.

Can you prove me otherwise? Can you?

I never said otherwise. But right now there needs to be a big infusion of men on the streets and the 6 week course might be all that can be done. At this time.. and there could be retraining. We just need to get Iraqis out on the streets ASAP. There is just no other compromise on that. We just have to allow them to have tanks and other heavy weaponry. I think the Russians should get into Iraq and supply the Iraqi military with T-72s, heavy artillery and other weapons.

	31-12-2004 19:56									#125
	Inflate your Upload Space

Right I agree the respnsibility should be shifted to Iraqi forces all the time more and more and there's no time to establish posh training facilities with plasma tv's for everyone so there needs to be some ... compromising on that. The training part is not so much where I see a problem though. The bigger problem I see is the mental attitude they have if coalition would leave too soon. I feel they would collapse soon and would be very easily to be dismantled. I'm basign this on arabs fighting on every combat, excluding few I haven't heard of and few times where it hasn't happened, the collapse.

They might show the fighting spirit early on, but I just don't trust they would actually be a good army right now. Not yet. Maybe not never. Yeah.. I think they will be a toss over for guerillas and terrorists.

	31-12-2004 19:57									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Can you prove me otherwise? Can you?

Does it matter to you? Someone could quote you chapter and verse a 50 tome volume writen by the recognized world expert on a matter, and if that did not agree with your opinion, you would simply insult the poster more, says that the expert knew nothing , and that you were right, period. You are oblivious to anything but your own pride (however misguided it is), and every single human being on this board knows that all too well (as every other person tells you without effect)- those that accept your being here do so mainly either of a "saintly" acceptance of even the most obnixious individuals, or because you amuse them in some creppy manner I do not understand. In the end, you stiffle debate, because either, as I am doing right now, people only respond to your manners and ways, having given up any hope in even the most rudimentary debate with you, or they sit back and fan the flames for their own ammusement. But in the end, unless people are so involved they can ignore you completely, or enough so that you moderate your ways, the thread is Fezzed-and there is a reason why that term is so widely accepted now- because its true.

Yes Ming, I know you don;t want to discuss posters, but this is a farce, and has been for some time, and this needs to be said by me, and if you want to restrict me for it, fine.

	31-12-2004 19:59									#127
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Ming point out where I insulted any one person. I was insulting liberal leaders.. everybody does it all the time to Bush.

All through out this thread you have been acting like a jerk throwing insults around. If you can't see it, then you won't be posting much longer, because the next one, you are toast.

	31-12-2004 21:27									#128
	Tired of ads?

Well Ming, I just don't appreciate when Gepap, who is a horrific poster, has a free ticket to insult me whenever he feels like and there is no answer from you about it. He calls me a nickname that has been long thrown out and throws these ad hominems out towards me. The guy obviously has too much time on his hands as seen by his last post. Rather Gepap you have one thing wrong. You are the one insulting me and Ming hasn't done one thing about it.

My ways are moderated. It is your ways, gepap, that are so far to the left it borderlines on extremism. This is not an insult, but just the way I see you. When you discuss moderation, I just roll my eyes.

But at any rate, I will not discuss the poster anymore. And will respect Ming's decision.

	31-12-2004 21:31									#129
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Well Ming, I just don't appreciate when Gepap, who is a horrific poster, has a free ticket to insult me whenever he feels like and there is no answer from you about it.

GePap is an awesome poster, even if he's wrong a lot of the time (because he disagree's with me )

	31-12-2004 22:16									#130
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by techumseh I had this debate nealy a year ago with Micheal the Great. Attacking a sovereign country without sanction of the Security Council is a violation of the UN charter and is considered a violation of international law. Kofi Annan has said as much. I consider this a long settled issue and rehashing it is boring.

You are wrong. The UN charter says that any nation can act to defend itself & national interests but that force be a last resort. It is up to the security council to decide if those requirements were met and I have never heard of a security council resolution objecting to the invasion of Iraq. Quite the opposite I saw several which seemed to imply it was sanctioned.
]

	31-12-2004 22:28									#131
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Well Ming, I just don't appreciate when Gepap, who is a horrific poster, has a free ticket to insult me whenever he feels like and there is no answer from you about it.

First.. YOU usually start it.
Second... "He started it" is no defense. As I've said to you probably a hundred times... If you have a problem, report it, then chill... because if you continue you it, you are breaking the rules and ONLY MAKING THINGS WORSE!
Third... You have NO CLUE what goes on via PM's or what action has or has not been taken against other posters!

quote: But at any rate, I will not discuss the poster anymore. And will respect Ming's decision.

I hope so... or you will yet again be restricted.

TOO EVERYBODY. Be civil or be restricted.

	31-12-2004 22:42									#132
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin You are wrong. The UN charter says that any nation can act to defend itself & national interests but that force be a last resort. It is up to the security council to decide if those requirements were met and I have never heard of a security council resolution objecting to the invasion of Iraq. Quite the opposite I saw several which seemed to imply it was sanctioned. ]

Actually, the US and Britain proposed a Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq and it was defeated.

And how can you even argue that this was a last resort? The UN weapons inspectors hadn't even finished their search for the dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction.

	31-12-2004 22:51									#133
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well I guess that this is the third to last nail in the coffin for the credibility of the pro war people.

You were told that this would happen, that the WOMD stuff was lies and that Bush and co. didn't really know what they were doing. About time you started a "So the Liberals were right... we were duped... we were wrong... and we promise never to vote again" thread.

	31-12-2004 23:30									#134
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin You are wrong. The UN charter says that any nation can act to defend itself & national interests but that force be a last resort. It is up to the security council to decide if those requirements were met and I have never heard of a security council resolution objecting to the invasion of Iraq. Quite the opposite I saw several which seemed to imply it was sanctioned. ]

Article 51 says force can be used in self protection- NOT to protect "national interests", which might very well be to invade, subjugate and exterminate your neighbor. Hence the war in Iraq in no way falls under the self-defense provisions of Article 51.

As for the second part, the UN must give affirmative support for action- not hints that a lawyer could agree that and so forth.

The US did bless the occupation after the invasion, but the invasion itself was NEVER authorized, since it was up to the full council, and not individual members, to decide what the serious consequences under 1441 would be.

	01-01-2005 00:52									#135
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Techumseh, there are several of us here who have always been opposed to this second invasion of Iraq from the beginning. First, it was either a violation of International Law, or someone trying to warp and twist in, undermining it seriously. This administration has consistantly done exactly that, both domestically and internationally, with rules that "get in the way" of it's policies. (check out the torture thread of a week ago). Oerdin, the invasion of Afghanistan was clearly sanctioned by international law, and guess what? We had international backing. The justification for this war was tenuous at best, and a second UN resolution should have been sought, IMHO. History bears me out.

We have a problem here in the United States, which many people around the world are only beginning to understand. We are a Republic, not a parliamentary Democracy. Not only that, since at least 1940, if not since 1860 (I have to keep Berz happy ) we have been steadily eroding our constitution, creating an increasingly stronger executive that now has powers closer to a Roman consul than a Paliamentary leader. Add in the current legislative picture, and in the United States we now distressingly close to what many of our founders feared, the tyranny of 50% + 1.

Do the majority of Americans see nothing wrong with foreign adventurism? Sadly, the answer is either no or that the see it as a lesser problem trumped by such things as the gay marraige issue. Just like England and Germany in prior times, as one poster noted, the US will reap the whirlwind for this, and those of us constrained by the Republican system and disenfranchised by it will also suffer the consequences as well.

That does not say that Saddam was not an evil man, and frankly other actions should have been initiated turning him into a pariah. Examples would have been having him tried for Crimes against Humanity years ago, and then starting UN Enforcement proceedings, i.e. what was done to Serbia. The problem is that the UN is spineless, and will not take effective action against genocidal governments.

I voted against the first Bush for his reelection, simply for that reason. The use of poison gas against the Kurds was already documented. For a variety of realpolitik reasons Bush Sr. left him there. I understood why, I also know that this is not the United States I believe in.

I strongly feel that the United States should first deal with its domestic problems, which at this point are getting worse, not better. IMHO also feel that the US should start to have a dual army, just like the Navy and the Coast Guard are seperate. The new force, whatever name we would give them, would be a peacekeeping force and be trained in nation building, not conventional warfre.

The problem now is, like so many posters have pointed out, that abandoning Iraq would be an even worse mistake now that we have dismantled the previous regime, and that the current policies are not going to produce the so-called result that the neocons have been promising us for years. We are probably going to end up with a semi-religious state with enough of a Shiite flavor that the civil war will continue. I wish the three semi-autonomous states under a federal government solution could be explored, but nobody seems to want it except the Kurds.

	01-01-2005 04:09									#136
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Agathon You were told that this would happen, that the WOMD stuff was lies and that Bush and co. didn't really know what they were doing. About time you started a "So the Liberals were right... we were duped... we were wrong... and we promise never to vote again" thread.

More likely is a big lurch further to the right ala Germany in the 1920's.

	01-01-2005 04:33									#137
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin That's the absolute worst thing that could happen. The reason is that Iraq would then become a failed state like Afghanistan and it really would become a haven for international terrorism. It wasn't before but it will be unless we leave in the right way.

How then do you recommend we withdraw in the right way? Staying forever is not only expensive as all hell, but it seems to guarentee a permanent insurgency will persist in Iraq for as long as we remain.

	01-01-2005 04:34									#138
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Shawn, I can accept for the sake of argument, all but the last paragraph. Let's assume for the moment that the US suddenly switches to benign policy in Iraq which puts the interests of the Iraqi people first, and ignores it's own interests. What would happen?

Option A, US stays to "help" stabilize the country:

1. The insurrection continues because the Iraqi people reject the right of the US to interfere in their country.

2. The US commits more troops to save the situation.

3. More bombings and other insurgent attacks.

4. US casualties mount until the American people force their government to pull out. Thousands more Iraqi's are killed.

5. Civil war, thousands more Iraqi's are killed.

6. Some sort of political settlement by the Iraqi people themselves. Rebuilding begins.

Option B, an immediate US withdrawal:

1. Civil war, thousands more Iraqi's are killed.

2. Some sort of political settlement by the Iraqi people themselves. Rebuilding begins.

Note the different casualty figures, but the same final result. The civil war is not inevitable, but I've included it because I think it's possible and because I want to err on the side of caution.

You are using the same reasoning that prolonged the Vietnam War, killing thousands more Americans and hundreds of thousands more Vietnamese, and which didn't affect the final outcome.

	01-01-2005 04:45									#139
	Support Apolyton

Doesn't seem either option is very accurate of the actual situtation.

	02-01-2005 00:12									#140
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo How then do you recommend we withdraw in the right way? Staying forever is not only expensive as all hell, but it seems to guarentee a permanent insurgency will persist in Iraq for as long as we remain.

We need to do what Bush and Rumsfield have so far been totally unwilling to do. We need to completely reconstruct the Iraqi National Army complete with heavy weapons. The 30,000-50,000 man army Rumsfield wants for Iraq is WAY to small and they're going to need upwards of 500,000 troops if we want the new government to be able to control the country. That army will need tanks, planes, artillery, and everything else which Rumsfield has prevented the ING and the new Iraqi Army from having.

	02-01-2005 00:14									#141
	Suffering from ads?

Oerdin

	02-01-2005 00:16									#142
	Inflate your Upload Space

In short the right way to leave is once a strong and stable government is in place. Unfortunately, since most of the sunnis will be boycotting the election the new government will have a question of creditability hanging over it and Bush/Rumsfield will not allow them to have more then a token army so I don't see how this can be achieved without a major change in policy. Firing Rumsfield would be a very good thing because then we might get someone in who will actually change policies to reflect reality instead of mindlessly repeating the same failed policies over and over.

	02-01-2005 00:46									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Didn't Rumsfeld want more? Get the Russians onto some arms contracts. We all know that the Iraqis are most familiar with their equipiment. I say 1,500 T-72s, 2,500 IFVs and APCs, and a lot of heavy artillery. But then again, it comes to the amount of debt Iraq has making it impossible to get this done.

	02-01-2005 00:57									#144
	Support Apolyton

Reasoning worthy of William Westmoreland, gentlemen. Never make the same mistake 3 times, I say!

	02-01-2005 10:47									#145
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin You are wrong. The UN charter says that any nation can act to defend itself & national interests but that force be a last resort.

I don't see how you can say that, when Annan and other UN officials have repeatedly said to the public that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.

	02-01-2005 10:56									#146
	Put an end to popups!

Those are personal opinions. The UN only declares an invasion legal or illegal by passing a Security Council resolution against it. That's not going to happen because two veto using members would oppose it thus the UN will not declare the invasion illegal.

	02-01-2005 16:56									#147
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos Most government employees earn salary. I wish I worked by the hour. I can only imagine what 6 moths of 24 hour days would yeild.

Ill health, exhaustion and nervous breakdown...

	02-01-2005 17:01									#148
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Those are personal opinions.

In public, representing the UN?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin The UN only declares an invasion legal or illegal by passing a Security Council resolution against it. That's not going to happen because two veto using members would oppose it thus the UN will not declare the invasion illegal.

You got it backwards. An invasion is illegal unless the UNSC decides otherwise.

	02-01-2005 20:33									#149
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The UN passed a resolution, 1441, making the war legal. But who gives the right for the UN to mandate international law anyways when they were deep in the pockets of Saddam?

	02-01-2005 20:58									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Those are personal opinions. The UN only declares an invasion legal or illegal by passing a Security Council resolution against it. That's not going to happen because two veto using members would oppose it thus the UN will not declare the invasion illegal.

Which is a different question form whether it WAS legal or illegal- given that it was up to a full Security Council vote to decide what the "serious consequences" for Iraqi non-complience would be, that two members decided upon themselves to take action is illegal, as they did NOT have the authority to do so.

Its interesting to note what Bush's ultimatum to Saddam was- it was not "agree to all the demands of 1441 in 48 hours or we invade", It was "leave or we invade", meaning of course the obvious aim of the US and UK was regime change, which is something the UN security council could NEVER authorize, as it is not the international communities business to determine the leadership of any soverign member of the Union.

The UN may have blessed the occupation after the fact, but the invasion itself was illegal-since the US and UK did not have the authority to interpret the law themselves and act without direct approval.